Transcript Highlights:

• just going back and looking at them that I think are vague, and I wanted to know if you had any feedback
• </c><01:00:14.280><c> from</c> if you had any feedback from if you had any feedback from testimony<01
• dismantling the state refugee program, which is currently in state government, there is another mechanism
• 03:12:54.400><c> another</c> state government there is another state government there is another mechanism
• for the state refugee program mechanism for the state refugee program to<03:12:57.040><c> be</c><03:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a reporting mechanism back to the board and commission, who can adjudicate the matter, to say,
• ><00:45:24.000><c> is</c><00:45:24.160><c> a</c><00:45:24.480><c> reporting</c><00:45:24.960><c> mechanism
• It is a reporting mechanism that at all.
• </c><00:49:25.359><c> to</c><00:49:25.680><c> the</c> was to give better feedback to the was to give
• better feedback to the complainants.<00:49:28.480><c> I</c><00:49:28.720><c> and</c><00:49:28.960><c>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 185, which would add timelines to Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) investigations. Senator Howard Pearl said the bill was prompted by concerns from the New Hampshire Association of Realtors about delays at the Real Estate Commission, and he explained that the proposal would require OPLC staff to make an initial determination within 30 days and, if misconduct is found, complete an investigation within 60 days. He said the goal is to improve transparency and give consumers and licensees more timely information, while preserving the board’s adjudicatory role. He also noted that the bill had been amended to delay implementation to give OPLC time to work through its backlog. Committee members questioned how the bill would work when an investigation is incomplete and whether the board could send a case back to OPLC without a firm deadline. Pearl said the board would have discretion to continue the investigation or make a final determination, and that the bill was intended to streamline OPLC’s process rather than impose a hard cap on complex cases. OPLC Executive Director Deanna Durus and General Counsel Nicholas Fry then testified that the agency has already changed its procedures under prior legislation, including a facial review of complaints and monthly board review of dismissal memos. They said the bill would substantially alter the current structure, could conflict with existing limitation periods and board duties, and would be difficult to implement without additional staff and funding. Durus said the agency’s backlog is large, that new complaints are being triaged and prioritized, and that some urgent matters are moved ahead based on risk and statutory deadlines. She said OPLC had completed a review of about 500 backlog cases that would now be dismissed under current screening standards, and that those cases are being turned into memos for board review. Board of Medicine public member Nina Gardner testified in favor of the bill but said the backlog is significant and that the agency needs more resources to make the process work effectively. She said the board is seeing progress, but not fast enough, and suggested the bill may not go far enough without additional staffing and funding. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We did receive some feedback in 1328 with questions about confluence of a prescriptive authority with
• </c><00:15:01.279><c> in</c><00:15:02.639><c> 1328</c><00:15:03.639><c> with</c> receive um some feedback
• in 1328 with receive um some feedback in 1328 with questions<00:15:04.399><c> about</c><00:15:05.120
• The main mechanism used to determine whether a midwife can be licensed here is that certification.
• that we use to that's the main mechanism that we use to determine<01:45:27.119><c> whether</c><01:45

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint House Committee on Health and Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce heard two midwifery bills, with testimony focused primarily on HB 1194. Committee chairs opened the hearing with rules for Zoom testimony and noted the bills relate to midwives. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said it supported the intent of HB 1194 and offered comments. Supporters of the bill, including the Midwives Alliance of Hawaii, argued that midwifery should remain subject to mandatory licensure to protect consumer safety, citing the state’s regulatory licensing standards and a 2025 state auditor sunset analysis. They said the bill would strengthen educational standards and public protection, and some offered clarifying amendments. Opponents argued HB 1194 would restrict access to care and fail to protect traditional, cultural, and community-based birth practices. Testifiers from the Hawaii Home Birth Task Force, the Hawaii Home Birth Collective, the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Pacific Birth Collective, and Papa Ola Lōkahi said the bill would limit licensure pathways, reduce access in rural and underserved areas, and burden Native Hawaiian and traditional practitioners. Several speakers said the measure could worsen Hawaii’s maternal health shortages, especially on Maui, and urged lawmakers to defer HB 1194 or instead advance HB 1328, which they said better protects practitioner access and cultural practices. The Hawaii affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives said it opposed HB 1194 because it did not align with national or state standards for certified midwives and could create conflicts with Medicaid reimbursement and prescriptive authority. The ACLU also opposed the measure, emphasizing reproductive rights, privacy, and the need to preserve apprenticeship pathways to licensure. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, mechanically, and maybe this is for Legislative Council staff, if this committee does not take jurisdiction
• Thanks for the feedback, and committee, if you do have other things related to scheduling, please do

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, that I'm, and I certainly take any feedback, but... ...you know, in establishing a court system
• We would establish a mechanism for who's going to pay for it, whether it be paid by the state or paid

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and then took up draft legislation to create a future interim committee to study the feasibility of a family court in North Dakota. Beth outlined the draft’s purpose, proposed 15-member membership, and the study topics, including constitutional authority, court structure, jurisdiction, fiscal impact, implementation, and possible phased-in approaches. Members discussed committee composition at length, ultimately agreeing to keep the committee at 15 by reducing legislative members from eight to six, adding two judges from different judicial districts, two family law section members with rural/urban representation, one parent subject to a custody order, and a clerk of court representative; the self-help, mental health, and domestic violence positions were debated, with domestic violence advocacy retained and some other positions removed or replaced. The committee also agreed to include analysis of state and local fiscal impacts and efficiencies, and to keep the provision on procedural rules in the draft. The revised draft was approved and recommended to Legislative Management, with one recorded no vote from Judge Hovey after the fact. The committee then turned to a second draft dealing with mandatory participation in a family transition program in contested parental-rights cases. Members first clarified that the term should be changed to a more general “parenting education course,” rather than a named private program, and discussed whether the bill should also require education about court process and family-law procedures. Some members argued the bill should specify content such as co-parenting, parental alienation, harassment, disorderly conduct, removal of a child from the jurisdiction, and contempt consequences, while others objected that the proposal was too vague, could impose costs without clear limits or waivers, and might amount to compelled legal advice or an undefined private program. Several members said the bill needed more specificity before it could be presented, and the discussion became increasingly divided over whether to keep the draft at all. The transcript ends amid that debate, with no final action yet taken on the second draft.

Transcript Highlights:

• original request, and then the remaining three were the ones that we added on after we took the feedback
• He plans to attend the University of New Mexico and focus on mechanical engineering.

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations from the Secretary of State, the State Land Office, the Attorney General, and the State Auditor. The Secretary of State said its requested general fund budget of $15.88 million was intended to maintain baseline operations, replace lost federal cyber and election support, and address a 12% vacancy rate. Officials warned that the House recommendation still left major gaps for election security, tabulator replacement, campaign finance system upgrades, overseas and military ballot services, ballot tracking, and a new tax lien filing system. Senators pressed about the election fund, county burdens, and the risk of underfunding election administration; the office said the House had provided $15 million for the election fund for the primary and another $15 million for the general election, but not enough for operations or all capital needs. The State Land Office said it was satisfied with the House budget action and had no additional request. Staff described the office’s record revenues, low vacancy rate, clean audits, and proposed new positions tied to forestry, economic development, petroleum, geothermal, and royalty compliance work. Senators asked about long-term revenue trends, forest thinning and biomass opportunities, and bookkeeping around the land maintenance fund; the office said the new positions were intended to generate revenue and support land management, including fire mitigation. The Attorney General’s office presented a budget built around a 0% general fund increase, greater use of the Consumer Settlement Fund, and $4.5 million in special/extraordinary litigation funding. The AG emphasized active litigation and investigations involving consumer fraud, Medicaid fraud, federal funding cuts, Meta and other technology platforms, AI and child safety, gaming compacts, tobacco, and possible litigation over abandoned uranium mine cleanup. Senators asked about scam enforcement, the structure of settlement funds, and whether the office could take on uranium-related litigation; the AG said the office could prepare a litigation budget but warned such efforts would require sustained funding. The State Auditor said the House budget added only modest increases while the office faced about a 40% vacancy rate, difficulty recruiting auditors, and a shrinking pool of public accounting firms, creating risks for constitutional audit responsibilities.

Transcript Highlights:

• I work with students, meet with families, and am constantly absorbing feedback on how to improve the
• Does your bill in any way, within the scope of the bill, deal with the mechanics for quantification of

Summary: The committee first heard HB 133, which would lower the minimum age to purchase a long gun from 21 to 18. The sponsor said the bill restores the rights of law-abiding 18-year-olds. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters from Gun Owners of America and Florida Carry arguing that adults 18 and older should have equal Second Amendment rights and that current law is inconsistent with other adult responsibilities, while opponents, including gun violence prevention advocates, students, parents, and Parkland-related speakers, said the bill would reverse a post-Parkland safety measure and increase risks of suicide, accidental shootings, and school violence. Several members debated the bill, with opponents emphasizing Parkland, the Florida State shooting, and public polling showing broad opposition; supporters stressed parental responsibility, mental health, and constitutional rights. HB 133 was then reported favorably on a roll call vote of 13 yeas, with several members voting no. The committee then took up CS/HB 289, which would revise Florida’s wrongful death law to allow parents to recover damages for the death of an unborn child. The sponsor said the bill is intended to let grieving parents seek civil remedies, and members questioned how it would apply in situations involving surrogacy, rape, ectopic pregnancy, medical care, and damages calculations. The sponsor said the bill would not allow suits against the mother, would not apply to lawful non-negligent medical care, and would be handled through ordinary wrongful death damage proof before a jury. Public testimony was again split: supporters from pro-life and faith groups said the bill recognizes unborn children and aligns Florida with many other states, while opponents from civil liberties, reproductive rights, and advocacy groups warned it could be used to target abortion providers, helpers, and even families or businesses in miscarriage-related cases, and could be weaponized by abusive partners. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 289, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• we generate the energy that it's clean, but, uh, you're certainly not saying that creating the mechanisms
• We'll get that feedback.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are not there for it as an enforcement mechanism.
• in regards to the amendments that were made in this bill, and I'm just wondering if there's any feedback

Transcript Highlights:

• If the goal is to address discrimination in classrooms, California already has mechanisms in place: a
• Every step of the way, when we have made changes, it's been because of feedback from a variety of communities

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held a special hearing on AB 715, with the authors presenting the bill as a response to rising anti-Semitism in K-12 schools. The authors said the measure is intended to strengthen protections for Jewish students, improve district accountability, expand the uniform complaint process, clarify protections related to religion and nationality, and create a state-level anti-Semitism coordinator. They emphasized that the bill was developed through collaboration with the Black, Latino, AAPI, and Jewish caucuses and argued it is meant to protect all students from hate while preserving legitimate classroom discussion. The hearing included extensive public testimony. Supporters, including students, parents, rabbis, Jewish organizations, and some educators, described harassment, biased curriculum, delayed or ineffective school responses, and fear among Jewish students and families. They urged the committee to act to make schools safer and more responsive. Opponents, including teachers, ethnic studies advocates, civil liberties groups, Palestinian rights advocates, and some Jewish parents, argued the bill was rushed, vague, and could chill academic freedom, censor discussion of Palestine and Israel, and expand complaints against teachers and school districts. Several witnesses said existing complaint and anti-discrimination systems already address these issues. Committee members then questioned the authors and witnesses about implementation, definitions, and possible effects on curriculum and school boards. The authors said the bill is still intent language and that details would be refined in further negotiations with stakeholders. Representatives from the California School Boards Association and California Teachers Association raised concerns about the new language and possible unintended consequences, while ACLU California Action said it had concerns but wanted to keep working on the bill. The transcript does not show a final vote or action taken on AB 715 during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In response to stakeholder feedback, we are planning to take amendments to strengthen this bill.
• Regional center appeals data to the State Department of Developmental Services, but there is no formal mechanism

Summary: The committee heard a series of child care, social services, immigrant support, disability services, and language access bills, with many measures drawing strong support and no opposition. Early in the hearing, AB 450 proposed a Department of Aging task force to study and recommend policies for undocumented adults age 55 and older; AB 593 would let CDSS identify data-sharing opportunities to improve CalFresh administration and participation; and AB 904 would clarify child care subsidy eligibility so families do not lose care during pregnancy leave, family leave, caregiving, or job search periods. All three were presented as ways to reduce barriers and improve access to essential services, and AB 904 was moved out on a 1-0 call after support testimony from child care advocates and a member of the public. AB 617, which would expand and standardize respite care access for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by requiring licensing and registry participation, drew both support and significant opposition from respite providers and disability service organizations concerned about added regulation, cost, and possible delays; the author said she would continue working with opponents, and the bill was moved out on a 2-0 call. The committee also heard AB 1220, which would require regional centers to document denials, notices of action, and appeals in individual program plans and include that data in annual reports to improve transparency and equity in developmental services. The bill drew extensive public support from parents, advocates, and disability organizations, with no opposition, and passed 5-0. AB 752 would make child care centers by right in certain residential zones when co-located with multifamily housing or institutional uses, and supporters argued it would reduce zoning barriers and help expand child care capacity; it also passed 5-0. AB 1242 would create a CalHHS language access director, require human review of machine translation, and improve language coverage determinations for state and local agencies; supporters emphasized health equity and the need for better access for limited-English communities, and the bill was moved out on a 4-0 call. Later, AB 548 would continue and expand the Asylee and Vulnerable Non-Citizen Program, which provides case management and integration services for asylees and certain visa holders; supporters said the program had been effective but had run out of funding, and the bill passed 4-0. AB 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act, would strengthen family safety planning for immigrant families, standardize acceptance of caregiver authorization affidavits, and create a joint guardianship process for temporary separations; testimony focused on fear of family separation and the need for clear school and medical procedures, and the bill passed 4-0. AB 1357 would exclude guaranteed income payments from being counted as income for state public assistance eligibility, with supporters arguing it would prevent recipients from falling off the “benefits cliff”; it passed 4-1. Finally, AB 1201, the Reunity Act, was introduced to require individualized court assessments before denying reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions after a five-year period, with the author and a witness describing the bill as a trauma-informed approach to family reunification.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is us going back to the community, getting more feedback of what else can we do, and how do we think
• we encouraged people to engage with some of the resources, and then we sent out a survey to get feedback
• a stronger maternal health care system, that was also referenced, as you can see, as part of the feedback
• That was also referenced, as you can see, as part of the feedback that we were receiving from Californians
• Recognizing that feedback, just this year we also released a health care workforce report as well, also

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and here, when you're not... if you're carrying on conversation, turn the mic on and off. of the feedback
• directors of instruction that offer direct support to our principals, a robust classroom walkthrough and feedback
• We do offer an extensive and robust classroom observation and feedback system.
• We have observations and Feedback Coaching Cycle sessions, or OFCCs as the principals like to call them
• Does that mean we're just getting feedback? We just turned off.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, with that said, I want more feedback on how we should be celebrating this incredible moment.
• And so, with that said, I want more feedback on how we should be celebrating this incredible moment.
• And so, with that said, I want more feedback on how we should be celebrating this incredible moment.
• And so, with that said, I want more feedback on how we should be celebrating this incredible moment.
• And with that said, um we are... with that said I want more feedback on with that said I want more feedback

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you know, this bill is in a draft and this hearing right now is meant for discussion feedback.
• So, I think that I welcome more discussion on this, and I appreciate all that feedback that you just
• So, I think that I welcome more discussion on this, and I appreciate all that feedback that you just
• </c><00:30:25.720><c> that</c><00:30:25.840><c> you</c> appreciate all that feedback that you appreciate
• all that feedback that you just<00:30:26.200><c> gave,</c><00:30:26.520><c> and</c><00:30:26.680><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We've got their feedback.
• We've got their feedback.
• We've<00:14:59.440><c> got</c><00:14:59.519><c> their</c><00:14:59.760><c> feedback.
• Um, what I do We've got their feedback.
• And like I said on this bill, we've met with PERS, got their feedback, incorporated any changes that

Keywords: Education - Room 216, January 6, 2026; 12:45 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 576, I am using to address stakeholder feedback following the enactment of my bill, AB 488.
• So this is addressing stakeholder feedback following the enactment of my bill, AB 488, in 2021 and the
• Attorney General's office and former DOJ staff who have continued to provide us with thoughtful feedback
• the majority leader has gone through so many rounds of discussions, and, you know, really great feedback
• We provide radar feedback signs.

Summary: The committee heard several bills and took up multiple votes. AB 576, dealing with updates to California’s charitable fundraising platform registry after AB 488, was presented as a technical fix to help charities and platforms more quickly update eligible listings; there was no opposition testimony, and the measure was later moved on a due pass basis. AB 1160, on law enforcement drone programs, was presented with proposed amendments requiring U.S.-based data storage and limits on sharing or selling collected data; supporters said it would protect sensitive drone-collected information while preserving affordable drone use, while there was no opposition testimony, and it was also later passed out on a due pass as amended basis. AB 75, which would require insurers to give notice before collecting aerial images of homes and provide homeowners access to those images, drew support from the Department of Insurance and consumer advocates, while insurers opposed it unless amended, arguing aerial imaging is a cost-saving inspection tool and that the bill could worsen availability and affordability; the bill was moved to Appropriations on a due pass basis, with the roll held open for absent members. The committee spent the most time on AB 325, which would address algorithmic price-fixing and collusion. The author and supporters argued that competitors using the same pricing software or algorithm to set prices can function as collusion even when the agreement is hidden behind code, and cited examples involving housing, frozen potatoes, gas pricing, and other industries. Opponents, including apartment, business, hospital, retail, chamber, and tech groups, said the bill was too broad, could sweep in lawful software and public-data market research, and might chill legitimate pricing tools, especially for small businesses and housing providers. Committee members raised concerns about clarity, intent standards, and whether the bill should focus more narrowly on nonpublic competitor data; despite those concerns, AB 325 was moved to Appropriations on a due pass basis, with the roll held open. Later, AB 1221 was presented as a workplace surveillance bill that would prohibit certain invasive or discriminatory surveillance tools, require notice to workers, limit sharing of worker data, and require corroborating evidence before discipline based on surveillance outputs. Labor and consumer groups supported the bill, saying modern surveillance technologies can track speech, movement, emotion, and other sensitive traits and can be biased or abusive. The Security Industry Association opposed it, warning that the bill’s broad definitions could restrict legitimate security systems, emergency sharing with first responders, and employer responses to misconduct or unsafe behavior. The transcript cuts off before any final vote on AB 1221 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're absolutely right, and that's the feedback I've been getting from the different groups of colleges
• You're absolutely right, and that's the feedback I've been getting from the different groups of colleges
• You're absolutely right, and that's the feedback I've been getting from the different groups of colleges
• You're absolutely right, and that's the feedback I've been getting from the different groups of colleges
• You're absolutely right, and that's the feedback I've been getting from the different groups of colleges

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The LSC Barr team is still digesting the feedback from the MPCA we received last week.
• The LSC bar team is still digesting<00:15:36.160><c> the</c><00:15:36.320><c> feedback</c><00:15:36.720
• So that's the only other feedback I have for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• So that's the only other feedback I have for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• So that's the only other feedback I have for you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Before I wrap up, I want to highlight that we incorporated feedback from NDC Mida and the Minnesota Initiative
• But as always, I'm open to feedback because I want to make sure that this helps as many small businesses
• from NDC Mida and the Minnesota feedback from NDC Mida and the Minnesota Initiative<00:02:39.440><c>
• </c><00:03:10.159><c> because</c><00:03:10.480><c> I</c> always, I'm open to feedback because I always
• , I'm open to feedback because I want<00:03:10.800><c> to</c><00:03:10.879><c> make</c><00:03:11.040>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all